To test we must do a proper study. Take foster kids. Randomly assign them to be raised in religious or non-religious households. See if differences develop in the populations. You can infer those differences are caused by religion.

Oh you know what might be a factor - I live in Chelsea which is the epicenter of the gay community in NYC. So maybe I'm just in a great location for getting matches, where women don't have a lot of straight guys to choose between.

You have the "quit for whatever reason group" and the "quit for health reasons" group. They are merged together into one population we are looking at. There is no reason 100% of the group has to follow the behavior I described for my statement to be accurate. If even 10% of them quit and make a lifestyle change for health reasons, and the cigs did "no damage" then that population with 10% health advocates and 90% random people would be expected to live longer than average. If they only live "average" that still means the cigs did damage that didn't heal.

Lets also look at a specific example you gave "maybe they fell in love" . did you know people who fall in love live longer than average? So ... if they quit because they fell in love, but then they only live an average length, that means that smoking still did some damage and lowered their life expectancy.

This site is full of ignorant anti-vaxxer types apparently. Who would downvote something like this?

some total ignoramus responded to me above, with "you are making all these assumptions" garbage vomit - probably trolling, and a whole bunch of people jumped on his bandwagon and started down voting the logic.

I thought you were agreeing with me here, but I guess you are trying to contradict me?

I am making zero assumptions. He said the article was saying something, I am telling him precisely why the article does not say that.

Zero assumptions made. The article really - DEFINITELY - did not say "as long as you quit before age 45 your body can recover from the damage" it said "the current people who quit lived the average life expectancy of the population"

which is a totally different statement, as I illustrated with zero assumptions. The statement MAY be true, but the article doesn't say it is.

"I am so tired of comments like this becoming the standard of Reddit when good science is presented"

Yes. the "good science" of Cuccacalli's comment where he misrepresented what the paper said should totally be revered and never questioned.

And clearly "Your whole argument rests on the idea that they are "likely" doing that stuff."

It actually 100% does not. It's YOUR argument that rests on the assumption a non-random sample won't differ from the general population. If only 10% of the group did what I said - and the other 90% of the group was random. You would expect them to live longer than average.

If only 1% of the group did what I said, and the other 99% were random, you would expect them to live longer than average.

If only ONE PERSON who quit did what I said, and every other person was random, you would expect them to live longer than average - just not by a statistically significant portion.

YOUR argument is assuming - idiotically - that literally no one in the group who quit, on their own, as a non random sample, would behave differently from the general population. It's indefensible.

Why would you be "tired of" comments like mine? I'm NOT contradicting a single thing in the study, I'm clearing up a misconception that arose IN THE COMMENTS by people specifically saying "the study said this" when the study DID NOT say that.

Those things don't have to be likely for my comment to be spot on. They just have to be possible.

You edited the shit out of your post: but now it contains the gem

"you can assume that the diminishing mortality is from quitting alone."

Which is 100% false. That was my point. You can't assume that unless you don't understand what the study said AT ALL. Thus precisely why I wrote my comment. You are actually trying to contradict the ironclad point I made with a huge, comically enormous error.

Why would you be able to assume that when they SPECIFICALLY SAID in the study it wasn't randomized and you KNOW it's not a random sample?

You are basically saying "In science we can not use random samples but then assume we did"

Why would you ever say something so ignorant? I think your post is literally the crux of what is wrong with society at large. You are making huge assumptions about the study, and dissing me for pointing those assumptions out as if I am the one presenting wrong science and not you. That's irony.